We, experts and scientists assembled in the Izborsk Club, appeal to the citizens of Russia, to the executive and legislative bodies of the Russian Federation, and to the citizens and public of Ukraine, expressing our concern and alarm about the course of events in Kiev and other Ukrainian cities.

In our view, the situation is approaching a boundary limit, beyond which lies the danger of Ukraine’s going fascist.

The latest actions by President Yanukovych, those of the “opposition trio,” and those of the West itself (the USA and the EU) clearly define a course toward the transformation of Ukraine from a non-aligned, neutral and non-nuclear state into a new “hot spot” for Europe and the entire world, and into a hotbed of instability and chaos on Russia’s borders.

President Yanukovych, through a sequence of concessions to the opposition and refusal to employ available, legally valid options for resolving the crisis, is creating the conditions for an illegitimate seizure of power by a coalition of political forces that do not represent the interests of the majority of the people of Ukraine. He is conducting this policy under pressure from “partners in the West” and in complete correspondence with the “recommendations” of American advisors working on a permanent basis in his entourage. Meanwhile, the “recording” of a telephone conversation between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador in Kiev Geoffrey Pyatt has revealed an rich array of nuances in American policy toward Ukraine. Among them we note the following elements. 1. Washington, acting through its embassy and through high-ranking European figures, is behind all the opposition’s moves and the very phenomenon of the “Maidan.” The goal of this political “game,” over the past few years and particularly during the organization of the Maidan itself, is to transform Ukraine into an anti-Russian state. This cannot be viewed other than as civilizational aggression by the West, headed by the USA, against Russia.

2. The USA has some disagreements with the EU, especially with Germany regarding the future promotion to the top position of either Klitschko (the EU choice) or Yatsenyuk, who would then be replaced by Tymoshenko upon her release. At the same time, Washington views with contempt the efforts of Brussels and Berlin to play an independent role in Kiev. But their main goals coincide.

3. Washington is most worried of all that Moscow, which has enormous reserves among the Ukrainian population, will suddenly wake up and become more active, wrecking the almost completed plan of establishing a totally anti-Russian government, up to and including the broad use of the fascistized followers of Bandera.

4. The U.S. leadership group on top of Operation Ukraine is comprised of high-ranking intelligence and diplomatic operatives, who are skillfully pulling into these “actions” senior political leaders, including Congressmen from both parties, Vice-President Biden, and even President Obama. Thus we see a consolidated U.S. strategy, which will not change in any way whatsoever without active counteraction by Russia.

The Immediate Scenario for Political Changes

The final transfer of power in Kiev is planned for implementation, most likely, under the following model based on overthrowing the current regime. President Yanukovych and the opposition “trio,” with “mediation by the West,” will enter into “dialogue,” and under the guise of mutual concessions, orchestrated by the USA, will set up a “round table” to form a technocratic coalition government for four to six months before early elections, likely both Parliamentary and Presidential. In parallel, the USA, through the opposition, will promote a “solution” of returning to “a Constitution on the 2004 model.” This scenario presumes that a large group of MPs and government officials (including from law enforcement agencies) will start shifting over to the “opposition” camp, as being the future victors and “masters” of the country. This situation allows control of the entire “electoral process” for the desired anti-Russian and anti-Slavic purposes. If, through some convergence of circumstances, the pro-American “opposition” fails in the elections, then the Maidan, maintained in a dormant state, will again be activated. Law enforcement will go over to the side of the opposition, and the elections will once again be declared invalid. As a result, Yanukovych will either be removed as President through yet another election cycle, or forced out by decision of the new Supreme Rada. It is also not to be excluded that he respond to U.S. admonitions to step down in the weeks immediately ahead, before the events forecast above. In the process of these changes during the next four to six months, Yulia Tymoshenko will be freed and ultimately will take over the leadership of Ukraine, on the radical national platform of Tyahnybok and other rightwing fascist groups. An ideological turn of events of that sort is equally advantageous to the USA and the EU, insofar as it would be a way of forming an anti-Russian state on the Russian Federation’s border, as well as disrupting any comprehensive integration processes in the former Soviet area. During this period the USA, most likely through the IMF, will give the transitional government or a fully established new regime of the current “opposition” something on the order of $12 billion to cover social budget payments and prevent social uprisings. This will make it possible to consolidate the success of the fascistic Maidan in elections. The new regime will not fail to implement an array of anti-corruption show trials against the Yanukovych group, saying that he was supposedly acting under the wing of Moscow, thereby both bolstering ideological animosity toward Russia on the part of the population, and also opening the door for a redivision of major properties in Ukraine.

Consequences of the Coup for Russia's Strategic Interests

The establishment, by the end of 2014, of a new political and ideological regime in Ukraine, headed by Tymoshenko or Klitschko, will unquestionably be based on an extreme nationalist ideology, as the only available mechanism for suppressing social tensions. In this light, the following decisions are to be anticipated, which directly affect the strategic interests of the Russian Federation.— Rejection of the presence of the Russian Armed Forces in Crimea, including at Sevastopol as the base of the Russian Federation’s Black Sea Fleet. The time frame will be set at six to ten months, which is insufficient for an orderly relocation of the military facilities to Russian territory in the vicinity of Novorossiysk.

— Purges of pro-Russian forces in eastern and southern Ukraine, leading to a flood of refugees into the Russian Federation.

— Annihilation of manufacturing capacities that do contract work for the Russian military-industrial complex, in Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, and other Ukrainian cities.

— Stepped-up forcible Ukrainianization of the population on the left bank of the Dnieper.

— Expanded partnership of Ukraine with NATO and the appearance of U.S. and NATO bases in Ukraine, including Crimea.

— Establishment in eastern Ukraine of bases for training terrorists, who will begin to operate both in the Caucasus and in the Volga Basin, and possibly also Siberia.

— Extension of “Euromaidan” techniques into major Russian cities, especially in ethnically defined constituent territories of the Russian Federation.

— Expulsion of the Russian Orthodox Church from Ukraine, accompanied by forcible seizure of churches and monasteries, resulting in a further decline of the authority of both the ROC and the executive branch of government within Russian society.

— Launching of prosecutions against Gazprom, Rosneft, and their executives, with the new Ukrainian government also suing Russia in Western-sponsored international courts under various pretexts.

What Is Russia to Do?

We consider the situation taking shape in Ukraine to be catastrophic for the future of Russia and the entire post-Soviet area.

In this connection, the Izborsk Club expert group proposes that the Russian political leadership take a number of actions, intended to keep the Ukrainian crisis within the framework of international law. This means:— an official ideological evaluation of the creeping coup as fascist and Nazi, infringing the rights of all peoples and ethnic groups living in Ukraine;

— an appeal to the Russian and Ukrainian peoples to resist with all their might the fascist plague that is seizing power in Kiev, and to bring broad layers of the public into the political process;

— direct social and economic assistance to all the regions of southern and eastern Ukraine, through launching bilateral programs and keeping low gas prices for Ukrainian customers, while withholding additional direct loans to the government of Ukraine;

— calling on all Russian citizens to contact their relatives and friends in Ukraine, to mobilize them to join an overt political process against the Maidan, which is leading to a future fratricidal war;

— establishment in all major cities in the Russian Federation of “Battle for Ukraine” public funds and voluntary financial aid funds for Ukraine, as well as, on the basis of these, groups to organize in regions of Ukraine that are pro-Russian;

— holding joint events for the Russian and Ukrainian public, both in border areas and between entrepreneurs and factory directors by sector of industry;

— launch of a broad campaign on national TV channels to support the Ukrainian public and expose the fascist content of the coup that is under way, as well as the adverse economic consequences for Ukraine, especially its eastern and southern regions;

— an open declaration to the world community on the unacceptability for Russia of the creation of a fascist, anti-Semitic state close to our borders, as well as making such statements at the UN and other international organizations;

— an appeal by the Government of the Russian Federation, under the currently valid Budapest Memorandum on the Sovereignty of Ukraine, dated Dec. 5, 1994 (Article 6), to the governments of Ukraine, the USA, and Great Britain, with a decisive protest against U.S. interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine and a demand to convene a conference of the parties to the Budapest Memorandum in connection with the situation involving political aggression and measures of “economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty”;

— in the event of refusal by one of the parties to take part in such a conference, the said memorandum should be declared temporarily invalid, with Russia entering into direct talks with Washington, citing the situation with the Caribbean Crisis [Cuban Missile Crisis] of 1962 as a precedent for the current events in Ukraine, and proposing to the USA to hold negotiations on developing joint monitoring of the political process and elections in Ukraine, as well as joint mediation of a settlement of the developing political crisis;

— a proposal to the People’s Republic of China and other BRICS countries to develop economic assistance plans for Ukraine and joint work in the entire post-Soviet area, in order to rein in any attempts at unilateral U.S. hegemony.

Only such actions by the Russian state and sane forces in the Russian and international community, together with the executive bodies of our two countries, can stabilize the social and economic situation in Ukraine and prevent social and political catastrophe in that country.